Beyond Aichi Target 11

The year 2020 marked the end of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity (2011-2020), and the intended date of achievement for various targets of the Sustainable Development Goals; the strongest collective statement to date from governments on the intrinsic links between development and conservation.

Notably, greater focus is being given to the wellbeing and capacity of rangers, including their ability to safeguard the rights of local people (Universal Ranger Support Alliance, 2020).

The past 10 years have seen the rise of novel ideas about area-based conservation, and debates have intensified around the future role of protected and conserved areas. While some discussions have focused on scaling up the proportion of the world that should be protected or conserved to halt biodiversity loss, others have been driven by a sense that more systemic change is needed (Bhola et al., 2020), and that efforts should now focus on the effectiveness of protected and conserved areas, alongside other quality elements. At the same time, methods of modelling future scenarios have evolved to give us a clearer picture of how human, climate and biodiversity concerns can be intertwined to ‘bend the curve’ of biodiversity loss (CBD, 2020; Leclère et al., 2020; WWF, 2020).

Against the backdrop of the ongoing biodiversity crisis, these developments have been motivated by growing evidence that protected areas are not always well managed or reaching the biodiversity most in need of protection (Geldmann et al., 2019; Watson et al., 2014). Although Aichi Target 11’s percentage coverage elements are measurable and have incentivised national action (Woodley et al., 2019; Green et al., 2019), increases in coverage are necessary but insufficient to conserve global biodiversity.

In the context of governance, quality is in part linked to diversity (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2013). Although governance diversity has received greater attention in recent years, there is more to be done. Indigenous peoples traditionally own, manage or occupy at least one quarter of the world’s land (including 35% of terrestrial areas with very low human intervention) (IPBES, 2019), and this figure rises to at least 32% when local communities are considered alongside indigenous peoples (WWF et al., 2021). However, indigenous peoples and local communities often care for nature while lacking formal rights to lands, waters and resources. Stronger partnerships between indigenous peoples, local communities, governments, conservation NGOs and rights-based NGOs will help to articulate how indigenous peoples and local communities can best be recognised and supported in their conservation efforts, with due consideration for their rights, livelihoods and development aspirations. Such efforts should take into account gender-differentiated roles, responsibilities and needs.

It has been similarly documented that private actors often lack recognition for their role in conservation (Bingham et al., 2017), with only 39 countries and territories reporting privately protected areas to the WDPA (UNEP-WCMC & IUCN, 2021c). The achievement of the CBD’s 2050 Vision for Biodiversity will therefore depend partially on recognising and documenting actions that are already ongoing, and supporting those responsible to maintain positive outcomes in the long term. Beyond non-state protected areas, this requires a considerable and collaborative effort to identify, recognise and document OECMs.

The recognition of existing measures is important but also insufficient in isolation, since counting and accounting for protected and conserved areas will not by itself affect conservation outcomes. There remains a need to increase coverage through the designation of new protected and conserved areas, including in the terrestrial realm where protected area growth has stalled in comparison to the marine realm. Accordingly, many governments have recently made commitments to expand their national networks of protected and conserved areas (United Nations, 2020). It is imperative that the implementation of these commitments is accompanied by a greater emphasis on integrated sustainable use and conservation, on ecological systems and connectedness, and on networks that encompass a representative sample of all elements of biodiversity (e.g. Watson et al., 2020). These networks of protected and conserved areas will need effective management, adequate resourcing, and equitable governance – including through the participation of women and other marginalised groups. In the marine realm, the Marine Protected Area (MPA) Guide (forthcoming reference) will help to classify protected areas according to their stage of establishment and level of implementation, contributing to a more nuanced understanding of MPA coverage. Monitoring at local, national, regional and global scales will also be essential, including of aspects that are currently challenging, such as equitable governance and marine connectivity.

Finally, the achievement and monitoring of biodiversity outcomes in protected areas has not received sufficient attention historically. Our future understanding of such outcomes will be critical to ensuring an effective global network of protected and conserved areas. Of equal importance is ensuring that protected and conserved areas exist in a framework that tackles the broader drivers of biodiversity loss, including climate change, wildlife and timber trafficking, and corruption (IPBES, 2019).